Evidence in General Reciprocal Discovery

Evidence

In general reciprocal discovery is the process by which criminal and/or civil prosecutions and defense aspects of a trial exchange evidence information. The type of evidence information is variable based on the type of trail, i.e. rules are basically less strict in civil cases, than in criminal cases as the burden of proof is also lesser on the part of the prosecution, and the prosecution has more rules of disclosure than the defense. The prosecution must disclose evidence to the defense in a timely manner so that the defense can have every opportunity to shed doubt upon it. The defense has a more limited obligation of evidence exchange as it is allowed to withhold aspects of evidence which violate the defendants right to privacy and/or the fifth amendment but in most states both the defense and the prosecution must disclose a witness docket. Some people have argued for the expansion of these laws and rules to give the defense greater opportunity, especially with regard to the timely release of information that might potentially shed doubt on guilt, or evidence that could demonstrate innocence that was discovered in a criminal investigation. (the Justice Project 1)

Most rules regarding discovery are decided and elaborated on by state and local government with a little bit of help from the federal government, as in landmark supreme court cases that have challenged discovery principles and actions. One such case stresses the timely disclosure of evidence of innocence in a criminal case, on the part of the prosecution. One example of a Supreme Court Ruling on discovery is Brady vs. Maryland in which a criminal prosecution failed to offer accomplice testimony for a defendant that reduced his personal liability in a criminal case to one that would seriously reduce his sentencing possibilities. ("Proposed Codification of Disclosure of Favorable Information under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 16" 93)

The purpose of reciprocal discovery is to ensure that both parties are aware of what is coming at them in a criminal or civil trial and has adequate opportunity to seek information that either disproves or lessens the validity of the evidence brought into court by the apposing council. The major purpose of reciprocal discovery is to maintain a fair trial for the defendant, and to protect him or her from unfair conviction or sentencing. Both parties are given adequate opportunity to respond to and answer any evidence that is brought forth to trial that the defendant may not have been aware of and therefore unable to disclose to his or her attorney. The discovery principals in criminal proceedings also tries to ensure that the prosecution of an offence does not lie solely on any confession tendered by the defendant, but requires that a confession be supported by evidence.

Hall 226) the purpose of this being that confessions can and often are false, many argue as a result of fear on the part of the defendant and in the past the ways of obtaining confessions were not always fair as it is the natural tendency of a criminal investigator to attempt to resolve matters completely, occasionally to a degree that is unfair to the accused.

Penalties for failing to offer reciprocal discovery, on either part is most effectively the ability of the conviction, sentence or findings to be later eliminated in appeals or even in some serious cases to allow the judge to suppress evidence in a first trial or even call a mistrial, ending the current prosecution. Appeal trials, especially in high level cases can seriously undermine any original convictions and therefore must be thought about even before the conviction occurs. All parties are under obligation to disclose information that could be used to support reasonable doubt or that must be countered by other supporting evidence or testimony. In most cases the penalty for failure to disclose is the suppression of such evidence in the trial or in later appeals trials. If evidence is key to conviction its suppression can end in a reversal of the findings of the court and therefore an overturned conviction. (Myers 1277)

The exclusionary rule applies to information and evidence. The rule in general gives either the prosecution or the defense (more so the defense) the right to have evidence or information suppressed from trial proceedings if it was obtained inappropriately, such as in the case of evidence seized without a search warrant or without probably cause or a confession that was achieved through coercion or torture.

Mirfield 356)

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to afford the defendant all his or her rights of privacy and to maintain fair proceedings in the gathering of evidence. Unlawful search and seizure is a serious offence, committed by investigators and regardless of the value of the evidence recovered there is no clear acceptance of the principle as a tactic in a "fair" proceeding. If the police and/or prosecution was given free reign to gain and submit evidence in whatever manner they could the accused would surely not have a fair trial. This is why in fact the police are separate from the prosecution in any case, to ensure that both are not somehow responsible for actions that can violate the rights of the defendant.

Many people have argued against the exclusionary rule, as it frequently results in overturned or unattained convictions of presumably guilty parties and is said to create an undue burden on investigation and prosecution of criminals. Many law enforcement officials and investigators contend that if evidence is particularly damming that it should be allowed even if it was achieved through dubious means as it ensures conviction of a criminal. The argument has arisen frequently in criminal and civil courts but is rarely taken seriously as laws and presence have been developed to ensure as much protection for the individual as possible, with regard to the individual's defense against the state. On the other hand those who argue in favor of the exclusionary rule expound on the fact that all people have the right to privacy and/or a fairly offered confession. It is clear that the exclusionary rule hinders the pursuit of truth in criminal cases, though it ensures that law enforcement and/or prosecution does not unfairly obtain evidence against the defense.